Department, not State, could Hire, Fire Specialist, Making it her Employer

Chicago, IL (WorkersCompensation.com) – In government jobs, it can sometimes be tough to figure out whether the state, or the specific agency, is the actual employer.

But according to Yousif v. Illinois, No. 21 C 1302 (N.D. Ill. 08/24/21), in the 7th Circuit, which covers Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, it comes down to who can hire or fire an employee.

A juvenile justice specialist with Illinois’ Department of Juvenile Justice experienced injuries to her head, neck, and back in an accident at work. After the specialist worked in a light-duty position for about two months, the department removed her from light duty, terminated her workers’ compensation benefits, and ceased paying her temporary total disability.

A little more than a year later, the specialist returned to work in a light-duty position, and on her second day back at the job, she experienced injuries to her head, neck, and back in another accident.

Eventually, the department again removed her from light duty, terminated her workers’ compensation benefits, and ceased paying her temporary total disability.

The specialist sued the state, claiming that it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act through the department’s actions. The state moved to dismiss the case, arguing that it was not the specialist’s employer.

7th Circuit Standards

Under precedent cases from the 7th Circuit, a state employee’s employer is the specific agency for which she works and not the state.

As a result of this precedent, the court found that the specialist did not have a claim against the state.

“Although [the specialist] alleges that the state hired her and that the state is her actual employer, her complaint also states that her positions were with the [department], she submitted forms and requests to the [department’s] human resources department, and many of her communications were with [department] staff and supervisors,” the court wrote. “While the court must accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint and draw all inferences in favor of [the specialist], the court finds it implausible that the state, rather than the [department], was plaintiff's employer with hiring and firing responsibility.”

In reaching its decision to dismiss the specialist’s claims, the court relied on two 7th Circuit cases:

• Hearne v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 185 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 1999), which held that teachers could not sue the governor, state, or state educational relations board because none was the teachers’ employer. This case explained that “employer” meant the “particular agency or part of the state apparatus that has actual hiring and firing responsibility.”
• Holman v. Indiana, 211 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 2000), which explained that a state transportation department, and not the state itself, had the actual hiring and firing responsibility to make it the employer.

Because the state could not hire or fire the specialist, she could not allege that it was her employer.

Share This Article: